Chicago-Law Schools

vansondon

No one is making the argument that you will be foreclosed from big-law jobs if you're in a part-time program. It's entirely consistent that (1) firms like Skadden will say they will consider people from such programs, but (2) will only hire the most qualified applicants from those programs. If you had clicked through the link I posted in my own post, you would have seen that I actually did cite to two examples of people from Depaul and Loyola who were partners at Mayer Brown. Searching their employee website suggested there were about 60 people from those two schools alone in attorney positions at that firm -- and that's just at one firm! I was only narrowly asserting that most of the people I saw on those firms' websites were on law review or graduated with honors, indicating that in order to get a job at Mayer Brown from those schools you had to be at the top of your class. It's totally consistent that someone could be both on law review and from a part-time program, but the point is that those people were on law review or graduated with honors, whichever program they attended.

Quote

I am so sick of these bad elitist ass arguments that are only meant to privilege a certain number of schools and their graduates.

Nothing elitist here, just working with the empirics. For what it's worth, I want to be a public defender.

ETA: I'm not sure how arguing the empirics makes someone elitist... or how an argument (which is, after all, a rhetorical device, or at maximum a speech act, but is at least in this context definitely not made with any kind of power-structuring intent) have any effect of "privileging" any school or any person.

/snip

Quote

I'll concede that you're entitled to your own opinion (no matter how ridiculous I think it is), but you can't make up your own damn facts.

Everything you said up to this point, I would have granted: a firm like MB is not likely to put (part time) on someone's attorney profile, even if they graduated with honors, so I can't rule it out. But nor can you affirmatively assert that any of those people could have been part time graduates without showing at least one person for whom that is true. Although your theory is plausible, you have to show something more than a bare assertion. See, e.g., Twombly. If you don't, you're also "mak[ing] up your own damn facts."

1. What empirics? Show me verbatim where you've done so. As far as I'm concerned, you've argued no empirics. And don't you ever talk to me about bare assertions, when you've neither shown nor cited any "empirics" that support the absoluteness with which you've made your own arguments. You have been the one making bare assertions, here. Don't get it twisted. Recognize your part in this. Also, I was referring to big - fat - box's post when I was talking about the elitist and privileged arguments being made (which is not the same thing as "making someone elitist"). There is a larger narrative here which I think your argument fits into; it's a narrative that suggests that if one doesn't go to one of the so-called top x schools, one is automatically shut out of big law. If you don't think that argument or narrative is present, I think your either in denial, or you haven't been here as long as you'd like me to believe.

Surely you can understand my grievance, here.

2. Skadden and Arps is all the example needed to prove that there are part-time law school graduates working in "big law." That's indisputable. That isn't a bare assertion. I've shown an admission by a "big law" firm that there is hiring of part-time students (even if you want to filter that through your law review and top x percent exceptions). You have not shown an admission indicating otherwise by a "big law" firm. Furthermore, affirmatively asserting what "could be" is not making up my own damn facts. Affirmatively asserting what "absolutely is" under the guise of your own opinion is making up your damn facts. Furthermore, it's not for you to impose some standard of proof onto me, you too must show more than mere bare assertions, since you are the one who first made bare assertions under the false premise of empirics that appear to be invisible. Whether implicit or explicit, there is this sense of hierarchical nuance, betterness, and snobbery present in the larger narrative encompassing your argument. Even if you could convince me that there were empirics supporting your bare assertions, arguing educational-institutional determinism is problematic and flawed.

3. Citing a couple of partners at certain big Chicago firms doesn't confirm the merits of your argument here. You'll need to do more than that. You observe a mere correlation between some 60 associates from Depaul and Loyola, and assert as absolute fact that one has to be on law review (at Mayer Brown)as if that were the only factor taken into a hiring decision. Furthermore, I don't think that this is necessarily something specific to Mayer Brown or to Depaul and Loyola graduates; I would argue that employers at "big law" firms consider law review and class percentage (among other factors) for all of their hires, no matter which program or which school they've attended.

4. You chose to use Mayer Brown as the poster child of your "big law" argument, not me. I'm not limited to that specific example. My argument applies to any large or "big" law firm scenario.

5. Whether you've been here 5 minutes, 5 days, 5 months, or x number of years, a troll is a troll (not to say that you are one--I'm just making a general point). I don't care that you regard your troll phrases as "meme phrases" and that you meant nothing personal by it. What matters here is my interpretation of those phrases, and I've made you very aware of it.

I'll concede that there are better words to use than swear words, but if you are but a child (which I don't believe) you'll have to get over it; otherwise, go elsewhere where the language is less likely to wound you.

6. I think preparing for the LSAT can encompass more than just intense studying over the summer before the exam. Hunni can familiarize herself in her spare-time now and ahead of time little by little, taking practice exams here and there, and then culminating it all with a preparatory course or intense focused studying for a sustained period of time as she nears the exam date. It doesn't have to be grueling just because she is doing an MBA. Also, she can spread out the cost of preparing for the LSAT over time, instead of doing it all in a fixed narrow time frame. The earlier she familiarizes herself with the exam and the process, the more comfortable she'll be and perhaps the better she'll do. It works like job experience, the longer you do it; the more practice you have; the better you're likely to be and the more comfortable you're likely to be. I don't think that's "awful." And it's also important to note that she'll need more than just good grades and LSAT scores to get into law school. There are plenty of persons with good grades and good LSAT scores who get rejected. The admissions process is more complex and competitive than good grades and scores (not to diminish their importance). Nevertheless, admission committees take more than grades and scores into account when making decisions. I would argue that it speaks volumes about her character and capabilities to succeed as she balances so many challenging tasks at once. I think it's condescending and disrespectful for you to assume that this is too much for her to handle or balance. You just don't know that. Ultimately, she must do what is best for her. Neither of us are at liberty to determine what that is for her.

Thank you to everyone who gave me some good things to think about. I suppose I should clarify my reasoning behind pursuing this degree so late in life! I have always had this in mind-however, as life can sometimes be, things happen and three kids and 15 years later, I have tried to go back and continue on with my education. My background is in finance, primarily in the risk/credit field. I realize that this is a huge undertaking-but if I allowed myself to be discouraged I would have not gotten this far...I have had people tell me already that the younger lawyers will "eat me alive"..I am not afraid of that, or how hard anything will be. I am pretty determined!

I do believe, however that I can incorporate a law degree into my current experience-so I am not looking for a career as a prosecutor necessarily, but focusing on something geared more towards my field-bankruptcy, corporate law, M&A, etc. I may not go to the highest ranking school on the map, but I have confidence in my abilities to see it through, whatever it ends up being.

I personally believe that employers look at both experience as well as education,and I am not trying to break into the most prestigious or well known firm. I just want to obtain my degree and use it to compliment my life and fulfill kind of a long time pursuit.

It's pretty short and entertaining, although if I were this close to the bar I would probably refuse to read anything more intellectually challenging than . . . Okay, I was going to say Beetle Bailey, but whotf reads actual old-school comic strips anymore? You get my point.

Don't even consider DePaul. I went there. After 4 1/2 years of night school, working full time at lousy clerking jobs they referred me too, and ever rising costs, my gpa dropped too low, by a whole 36/1000's of a point, and the bastards kicked me out with only 3 classes to go. The two classes I was enrolled in were passing grades, but they both refused to consider that and refused to allow me to continue. I was due to graduate in less than 6 months. I had a job lined up with a socond available. The best the joke of a 'dean' could offer was "Even if I could help you, I don't know that I would". DePaul ruined my life, and I discourage you from taking a risk on this law school. Elitist, and the enemy of working students. It's not what people say, it's what they do, particularly to people who are not from their 'caste'. Bunch of plutocrats.

How does this post fit in with this forum? This forum is a "distant education law school" forum. Where else do they have distant education law schools besides California? As far as I'm aware, Chicag doesn't have an distant education law schools. Do they? What about another state?